Pacifism is immoral. Discuss?

If you do nothing to stop violence then you have chosen to respect the viewpoint of the assailant instead of the victim. Since morality means diong unto others as you would have them do unto you, and since violent domination breaks the moral sphere and it should be restored to peace, it is immoral to uphold the volent offender's viewpoint.

Stanley Hauerwas has argued that nonviolence allows for the protective use of force in such cases and is thus distinct from pacifism.

Probably not the greatest observation in a r and s forum--but in a darwinian sense--pacifism is neither moral or immoral--in the animal world pacifism would be a ticket to extinction of the offending genes. In the human world, pacifism taken part in when one is on the side that loses (there must be conflict to be a pacifist-else there would be nothing to be that way over) has a very good chance of winding up starving, hungry--survival of the fittest for the conquered--again there is no morality per se, merely a choice which may or may not get you and your kin killed. Pacifism on the winning side--well this is probably the only true immoral pacifism--for in order to enjoy the benefits that the winning society offer--there has to be other peoples fathers, husbands, sons, daughters do the fighting that the pacifist won't do. One could argue that if the side the pacifist is living on loses then there is a reasonable expectation of not having a great life if one is overrun--nothing immoral about it. To live a life on the backs of others --if this were the other side--then that is a bit immoral.

I disagree, but then I am a pacifist. I do not see how not picking up a weapon and using it against another human being, to not take a life, to find alternatives to violence as being immoral.

Not all pacifists protest and deride those that in their own conscience feel they must fight. I never do because people have the right to be guided by their own conscience and it is not my place to put another down for doing what they truly feel is correct; after all, that is just what I myself am doing. I just feel that all warfare is unjust and there are far better alternatives that a species could use but they rarely have the patience to do so.

Edit - For myself pacifism has nothing to do with religion as I am an atheist. However, I will admit a good number of my ancestors were Quakers so there is a history of it in my family.

You would have to define "moral" first.

In some cultures, yes, it would be immoral. But not in most of the world.

No, but in certain cases it may not be the best choice of action.

I'll give you a topic. Rhode Island, neither a road nor an island... discuss.

Some would argue not... New Testament..